Shrimp is as blasphemous and disgusting as homosexuality. I sure hope you don't eat shrimp, that sure would piss off your god.

All the leftists in this thread take any reasonable argument people make and turn it into "you are religious and are wrong". The point I am making about free-love is not a religious one per-se. It is a philosophical idea that many writers and philosophers explore. I'm not surprised you've never encountered it since any reading you might have done is probably limited to mao's little red book or the communist manifesto. I don't think Bill Ayers or Obama would ever lecture on it either.

My point against "gay marriage" is that re-defining things just to please current societal norms is ridiculous. If you went up to someone a few centuries ago and told him 2 men could get married he would find it as preposterous as if you started moo-ing, walking on all fours and told him you think you are a cow. Just because some people want to re-define it and the media and television portray it in a positive light doesn't mean we should accept it. If this is the path we follow what is to prevent us from accepting rape and murder in the years to come?

Also, my point was that our voting system is flawed. I pointed out that democracies brought fascists and communists to power in the past. Claiming fascism is a far-right movement proves nothing. In a circle of political ideas I am nowhere near the right. Way to just repeat media propaganda. You only prove my assertion that people like you shouldn't have the right to vote because you are incapable of engaging in political thought when 99% of what you say or answer is just repeated media propaganda or imagined and exaggerated claims that are meant to deflect from the question at hand.

If you told someone 2 centuries ago that inter racial marriage was legal the majority of states would not have believed you. Are you saying that an outdated legal definition is more important than anything else?

My last job was writing legislation. Of particular importance is definitions and making sure they stand up to legal scrutiny. It is pretty common to redefine words to react to social change. Legislation is a fluid thing. To have an argument based on a principle of it wasn't like this in the past doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

If you told someone 2 centuries ago that inter racial marriage was legal the majority of states would not have believed you. Are you saying that an outdated legal definition is more important than anything else?

My last job was writing legislation. Of particular importance is definitions and making sure they stand up to legal scrutiny. It is pretty common to redefine words to react to social change. Legislation is a fluid thing. To have an argument based on a principle of it wasn't like this in the past doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

The government should get out of marriage all together. Straight or gay they should issue a civil union license and be done with it. If you want to get married in a church, by all means, do so. If you want to get married at Disney on Gay day go a head and do so. This is a simple and logical solution to the whole gay marriage issue. Is it not?

The reason this has not been enacted is because the government rather enjoys us simpletons bickering and arguing about this silly issue while most of the public overlook the important issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Change the law, get married, live next door, adopt kids, pay your taxes, participate fully in society, be my friend, whatever makes you happy is good to go.

I wish you well--just quit trying to persuade me that homosexuality is not abnormal, OK?

I agree with this. I don't have to agree with their lifestyle to accept it.

The government should get out of marriage all together. Straight or gay they should issue a civil union license and be done with it. If you want to get married in a church, by all means, do so. If you want to get married at Disney on Gay day go a head and do so. This is a simple and logical solution to the whole gay marriage issue. Is it not?

The reason this has not been enacted is because the government rather enjoys us simpletons bickering and arguing about this silly issue while important issues are overlooked.

This isn't the attitude of the left in the US. I'm all for civil unions, but when people want to bring down my marriage to a woman by changing the meaning of a millenia old tradition I am going to stand my ground.

People on the left specifically do not want to accept civil unions and need to be "married". You know what my opinion is. If you really need to be married cure that mental disease you have that attracts you to people of your own gender and then you can get off the short bus. Until then be grateful that normal people accept you at all.

As a person on the right i have issue with the government issuing a marriage license. I'm quite sure they got into this business for reasons of income tax and what not. But the only reason it wasn't called a civil union back in the day was because there wasn't a large homosexual presence.

I personally believe it's not my place or anyone else's to judge anyones sexual preference. I don't think anyone who's walking in parades in drag want to have the same type of "marriage" straight people have. MOST of them just want their significant other to be recognized by the courts when it comes to tax filing, benefits, last will & testament, etc...

There is just no reason the government should be involved in regulating a religious institution such as marriage. I know of a two women who have same sex tendencies but don't want to submit to that lifestyle. They happen to be sisters and because neither of them want to be with men and neither of them want to be with women; they chose to live together as companions. They share all the expenses of living and like a couple, share their time together. Why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights as a man and a woman doing the same thing?

I don't look at this issue as gay vs straight. I look at it as a civil right issue and in that light, some people aren't afforded the rights they should have.

This isn't the attitude of the left in the US. I'm all for civil unions, but when people want to bring down my marriage to a woman by changing the meaning of a millenia old tradition I am going to stand my ground.

People on the left specifically do not want to accept civil unions and need to be "married". You know what my opinion is. If you really need to be married cure that mental disease you have that attracts you to people of your own gender and then you can get off the short bus. Until then be grateful that normal people accept you at all.

This isn't the attitude of the left in the US. I'm all for civil unions, but when people want to bring down my marriage to a woman by changing the meaning of a millenia old tradition I am going to stand my ground.

People on the left specifically do not want to accept civil unions and need to be "married". You know what my opinion is. If you really need to be married cure that mental disease you have that attracts you to people of your own gender and then you can get off the short bus. Until then be grateful that normal people accept you at all.

You mean the millennial old tradition that used to include men marrying other men?

I pity the amount of bile that fills you. But it seems to bring you pleasure, so carry on.

As for me, I don't care what people do in their bedroom provided it is between consenting adults. Gay, straight, dwarves, dress ups, interracial, multiple partners, whatever. Go for your life. I'm not getting caught up about what people do.

Why does it affect you in the slighest?

MPOWER. Agree again. Marriage is a civil thing. Not a state thing, nor a religious thing.

I think its funny the people who threw up Romney as their solution to Obama are thinking anything would be any different today if he had won.

No matter who is in power, spending increases, the debt increases, and the middle class gets smaller and smaller.

I am going to sit back and cheer on Obama and hope he gets everything he wants. This country is going down the toilet and it needs to happen in our generation and not the next. We should live to see the result of our stupidity as an electorate. We are well past the point of no return.

What was Romney going to cut? $100 million from Planned Parenthood and PBS??

This isn't the attitude of the left in the US. I'm all for civil unions, but when people want to bring down my marriage to a woman by changing the meaning of a millenia old tradition I am going to stand my ground.

People on the left specifically do not want to accept civil unions and need to be "married". You know what my opinion is. If you really need to be married cure that mental disease you have that attracts you to people of your own gender and then you can get off the short bus. Until then be grateful that normal people accept you at all.

Oh you mean traditional marriage. Like when Cleopatra married her 4 year old son to keep her power in her empire?

Please explain how my two friend's Alex and Michael being married "brings down" your marriage to a woman. Personally my wife's name is Shannon, not woman.

Just the other night my wife and I were thinking how Ellen Degeneres and Portia were making a mockery of the institution of marriage, and how it was profoundly impairing our ability to maintain a strong relationship ourselves.

If only more celebrities would stop providing such a bad, blasphemous example to the impressionable youth today.
Clearly, God is on Team Breezy, since his private bits are not the same as Rihanna's, thus making it a great example of a dynamic to strive for.... in fact, I'd like to think there is a special place in the afterlife reserved just for those who treat their women like he did.

Remember, Ellen is the most damaging kind of liberal, not the kind who pay no income taxes, and use their taxpayer funded Obamaphones to do everything BUT try and find a new job or learn a useful trade.

Just the other night my wife and I were thinking how Ellen Degeneres and Portia were making a mockery of the institution of marriage, and how it was profoundly impairing our ability to maintain a strong relationship ourselves.

If only more celebrities would stop providing such a bad, blasphemous example to the impressionable youth today.
Clearly, God is on Team Breezy, since his private bits are not the same as Rihanna's, thus making it a great example of a dynamic to strive for.... in fact, I'd like to think there is a special place in the afterlife reserved just for those who treat their women like he did.

Remember, Ellen is the most damaging kind of liberal, not the kind who pay no income taxes, and use their taxpayer funded Obamaphones to do everything BUT try and find a new job or learn a useful trade.

Just the other night my wife and I were thinking how Ellen Degeneres and Portia were making a mockery of the institution of marriage, and how it was profoundly impairing our ability to maintain a strong relationship ourselves...

Oh you mean traditional marriage. Like when Cleopatra married her 4 year old son to keep her power in her empire?

Please explain how my two friend's Alex and Michael being married "brings down" your marriage to a woman. Personally my wife's name is Shannon, not woman.

I am referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition that our society is built on. What the egyptians did interests me less than what "marriages" might exist between chimpanzees.

Oh, your "wife" isn't a woman. Maybe you married a dog. Is that your thing? How would I know? Well, honestly I think you should probably be sent to an insane asylum. Maybe some electroshock therapy could help you. You telling me a man can marry a man is as insane as if you told me you think you are a cow and started walking around on all fours moo-ing.